LOS ANGELES—In a world where every percentage point can mean the difference between life and death, the United Kingdom (U.K.)’s 2024 decision to slash its foreign aid budget from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of its GDP is more than a fiscal adjustment—it’s a geopolitical tremor.
With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine dominating global headlines, many European countries, including the U.K., have been prompted to reassess their defense strategies and prioritize increased defense spending to address emerging global security threats. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to reallocate funding from foreign aid to defense reflects this shift, with the cut from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of the GDP amounting to “several billion pounds”. This redirection of funds aims to strengthen national defense in response to escalating security risks, particularly those posed by Russia’s aggressive foreign policy, with Starmer emphasizing the need to prioritize the U.K.’s defense capabilities during the ongoing war in Ukraine. Although necessary, he told Members of Parliament, “That is not an announcement I am happy to make. We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and rebuild our development capabilities, but at times like this, the defense and security of the British people must always come first. That is the number one priority of this government.”
There is a clear reason why the U.K.’s Prime Minister is unhappy with the decision, as prioritizing national defense capabilities over foreign aid aligns with realist views. This stance is reflected in the Prime Minister’s statement, “This government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defense spending since the end of the Cold War.” The backlash against this move is undeniable, with critics arguing that this budget cut is not just a recalibration of resources but a retreat from the U.K.’s long-standing role as a leader in global aid. Just seven days ago, International Development Minister Anneliese Dodds resigned in protest, warning that the cuts would “leave a void for China and Russia to exploit and harm the U.K.’s global reputation.”
Given the gravity of this decision, what could the execution of such a budget cut entail, and who would be the most affected?
Reducing U.K. foreign aid is expected to exacerbate refugee vulnerabilities, limiting access to essential services that impact these populations’ survival and recovery. As Dodds warned, it could “remove healthcare, food, and education from desperate people” while also diminishing the country’s influence and diplomatic standing in developing nations.
In 2023, the U.K. contributed significant funds to humanitarian efforts in regions like Yemen and Sudan, providing vital assistance for food, medical care, and refugee support. However, the U.K.’s decision to reduce its foreign aid budget has severe consequences for these regions, severely weakening the ability to provide ongoing assistance. In Yemen, where conflict has displaced millions, reductions in aid could exacerbate food shortages and hinder access to medical care, pushing the country closer to collapse. Similarly, in Sudan, where refugees face severe challenges, the loss of support may lead to even more desperate conditions, placing additional strain on already fragile health systems.
Historically, the U.K. has also been a key contributor to global health initiatives, such as funding vaccine programs and supporting organizations like Gavi and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. A sharp reduction in funding for these initiatives could have far-reaching impacts, including fewer vaccinations for children, which could lead to a resurgence of preventable diseases. This setback threatens global health progress, particularly in vulnerable countries where the United Kingdom’s involvement in health initiatives is critical to reducing disease outbreaks and mortality rates.
Under the new Trump administration, significant humanitarian cuts have already been made to global efforts, shifting the burden onto the U.K. to become one of the major, and perhaps the leading, foreign aid providers. However, Starmer’s reduction in foreign aid only deepens the impact of the Trump administration’s decision to shutter USAID and freeze nearly all federal aid spending. This has created a considerable funding gap for crucial programs like PEPFAR, the primary anti-AIDS initiative. Humanitarian workers have also reported chaos within these programs, with life-saving drugs going undelivered despite claims of resumed funding. As a result, the World Health Organization has highlighted further setbacks, including the suspension of HIV treatments in 50 countries and delays in critical efforts to combat polio and mpox.
The United Kingdom’s reduction in aid will, in addition to impacting refugees’ healthcare, also disrupt their immediate food supply, with far-reaching consequences for their overall well-being. Daniel Sullivan, the director for Africa, Asia, and the Middle East at Refugees International, pointed out that over a million refugees in the world’s largest refugee settlement will suffer from reduced food rations due to these cuts. As Sullivan put it, “To cope with the situation, we had actually been praying for an increase in the $12.50 [£9.70] food ration. But now, they are cutting down the ration even further. We all have to starve now.” This highlights the dire consequences of such reductions, which are pushing food supplies to critical levels, as seen in the forcible actions of the World Food Programme (WFP) to halve the food rations for over a million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh due to financial shortfalls. However, this dilemma extends far beyond hunger, as reduced access to nutrition, healthcare, and education increases the risks of malnutrition, disease, and long-term poverty. These reductions not only worsen the plight of displaced individuals but also strain host countries, destabilizing already fragile regions and intensifying the challenges facing humanitarian organizations.
Despite the UK’s ongoing humanitarian efforts, the reduction in its foreign aid budget is expected to impact global education support. One of the most vulnerable areas is the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), which has long been supported by the U.K. As the largest donor to GPE, the U.K. has contributed over $876 million (approximately £660 million at current exchange rates) since 2004, playing a pivotal role in funding essential educational programs in low-income countries. With the U.K. scaling back its aid, the GPE’s ability to sustain and expand its efforts to provide quality education in some of the world’s poorest regions will be severely compromised, leaving vulnerable populations at even greater risk of educational disparity.
The U.K.’s decision to reduce foreign aid funding, especially in light of its crucial role in the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), raises significant concerns about the future of educational initiatives in developing countries. The GPE has been instrumental in advancing education for the most vulnerable groups, including girls, children with disabilities, and those in conflicted zones. Additionally, the U.K.’s support has been vital in areas like teacher training, educational infrastructure, and school construction—key elements for achieving global educational goals. These efforts align with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4, which strives to ensure inclusive, equitable, and quality education for all by 2030. Still, as a major contributor, the U.K.’s reduced funding could significantly hinder the progress of marginalized communities and lead to a decline in essential educational opportunities.
The U.K.’s decision to cut its foreign aid budget marks a pivotal moment in the balance between national defense and global responsibility. As defense spending rises in the face of escalating geopolitical tensions, the repercussions of reducing aid will be felt far beyond the borders of the U.K.. From the millions of refugees at risk of losing access to vital resources to the children whose education and future are now uncertain, this shift in priorities is a stark reminder of how interconnected the world’s challenges truly are. The question now is whether the U.K.’s focus on security will ultimately safeguard its own interests or fracture its role as a key player in shaping a more equitable world. Only time will tell if this retreat from global aid will strengthen national borders or deepen the divides that already threaten the most vulnerable.
